Which 50mm (with AF) is best from f/1.4 - f/2.0?

[skitron]

FWIW, I have the Sigma, it had the focus issues, I sent it in, its fixed now. On a 5D3 works as expected at all distances.

Here's a 100% crop at f/1.4 of RAW with moderate sharpening in post -> jpg, and maybe it helps you decide if its sharp enough for you or you need to look elsewhere. The left eye of the picture is dead center of the shot so represents the best it is going to be across the frame.

EDIT - below is 100% crop about 2/3 the way towards the left edge @f/2.8. If somebody wants to see a crop of the extreme edge at f/1.4 I'll do one and post it.

EDIT 2 - LOL, I suppose I'll venture into the dangerous and comment subjectively... Based on what I've seen posted elsewhere, the Canon 1.4 renders differently than the Sigma which renders differently than the 50L. Personally, I like what I'm seeing in the 50L shots quite a bit and actually that is when stopped down a bit. But so far, its not enough more so to buy one. Not just yet anyway...

Another edit...the crops are actually truncations of a 100% magnification that are rendered as jpg in a way to retain the same feature size as presented in the full 100% magnification. So purely as a crop they are more like 200% but rendered so that the feature sizes represent 100% magnification @350dpi. Meaning what you see below without opening the shot in a viewer has the same feature sizes as if I posted the non-truncated 100% magnification and you opened it in a viewer and viewed that full screen.

[switters]

Thanks everyone for your replies. What I've gathered so far is:
— The Sigma 50/1.4 is probably the sharpest at f/1.4 of the bunch, and nearly a match for the 50L's bokeh
— The 50L has better build quality, weather sealing, bokeh and possibly microcontrast and color
— The Sigma is prone to AF issues

I have the Sigma 35 and it's an excellent lens. It did take two copies to get a good one, though; the first front-focused badly.

I'm trying to decide whether the additional cost of the 50L is worth it. Sounds like I might be better off trying for a good copy of the Sigma 50 first.

[pierceography]

I actually JUST had the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 delivered today.  I already own the Canon 50mm f/1.4, but just never fell in love with it.  I'm going to take some test shots on my 5Dm3 when I get home, and I'll post them here if anyone's interested.  But there's been a slew of comparisons.  I'm actually more curious to see how a new copy of the Sigma compares, as I've heard the newer copies of the 50mm fair better from an AF perspective.

[skitron]

I actually JUST had the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 delivered today.  I already own the Canon 50mm f/1.4, but just never fell in love with it.  I'm going to take some test shots on my 5Dm3 when I get home, and I'll post them here if anyone's interested.  But there's been a slew of comparisons.  I'm actually more curious to see how a new copy of the Sigma compares, as I've heard the newer copies of the 50mm fair better from an AF perspective.

If your body has it, I'd set AFMA for about a four foot subject distance @f/1.4. Then shoot something at about 40 feet @f/1.4. If it's way OOF at 40 feet, knowing what I know now about the issue, I'd say just send it to Sigma USA as long as you like what you see at 4 feet. They now have a very good fix for this issue in my experience and if you like what you see at 4 feet its probably a copy worth keeping imo. 

Sure it stinks to send in a new lens and many people rail on Sigma about this, and I suppose rightfully so, but its not like Canon doesn't have issues with their 100L and apparently a bunch of them have worse focus issues than the Sigma 50...I know mine does. If you have an affected 100L it is purely a lottery each and every shot whether you get this weird softness that looks kinda like motion blur but not really the same. I know. I just spent $200 to have mine fixed because unlike Sigma's 3 year warranty, Canon only has 1 year. Still waiting to get it back from Canon to see if the $200 actually fixed this lightly used 14 mo old 100L that I paid extra to buy from an authorized dealer ... /rant off

[Daniel Flather]

The 50L needs to be used wide open, at f 2.0 - 2.8 the extra cost is for the bokeh.  Also focus shift can be an issues at those f stops. 

The 50L  is awesome, but damn you pay for that little extra.  Stopped down the 50/1.4 is 95%+ of the 50L.  I have no experience wit the sigma 50. 

[switters]

If your body has it, I'd set AFMA for about a four foot subject distance @f/1.4. Then shoot something at about 40 feet @f/1.4. If it's way OOF at 40 feet, knowing what I know now about the issue, I'd say just send it to Sigma USA as long as you like what you see at 4 feet. They now have a very good fix for this issue in my experience and if you like what you see at 4 feet its probably a copy worth keeping imo. 

This is very helpful, thanks.

[switters]

The 50L needs to be used wide open, at f 2.0 - 2.8 the extra cost is for the bokeh.  Also focus shift can be an issues at those f stops. 

The 50L  is awesome, but damn you pay for that little extra.  Stopped down the 50/1.4 is 95%+ of the 50L.  I have no experience wit the sigma 50.

That's the problem: I primarily want to use the 50mm from f1.4 to f/2.8. I have the 24-70 II and it is amazing at f/2.8 and 50mm, so there's not much point in me having a fast 50 if I can't use it wide open.

[RLPhoto]

50L.

[spinworkxroy]

For me it was the opposite.
I had both the Canon f1.4 and the sigma f1.4. I've done many tests both in the real world and test charts and maybe my Canon is a great copy but the sigma is anyways significantly less sharp when zoomed in.

I've already sent the sigma together with my body to sigma for calibrations twice, even did my own Focal calibrations at home and no matter what I do, the sigma can't hold up with the Canon.

Granted the sigma has much nicer bokeh but I'd rather it be sharper. In the end I sold the sigma

[EvilTed]

Just get a Sigma 35mm F/1.4, it's slightly wider but easier to use than the 50L and you can get really impressively sharp shots @ F/1.4, unlike the 50L @ F/1.2 which is a dreamy hazy look (you can always soften a sharp lens but not the other way around).

If you have the 24-70 II, you'll love the Sigma

ET

[Brock]

Thanks everyone for your replies. What I've gathered so far is:
— The Sigma 50/1.4 is probably the sharpest at f/1.4 of the bunch, and nearly a match for the 50L's bokeh
— The 50L has better build quality, weather sealing, bokeh and possibly microcontrast and color
— The Sigma is prone to AF issues

I have the Sigma 35 and it's an excellent lens. It did take two copies to get a good one, though; the first front-focused badly.

I'm trying to decide whether the additional cost of the 50L is worth it. Sounds like I might be better off trying for a good copy of the Sigma 50 first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44FqqE6ukjY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uaOC-q6nP8

IMO the L seems to have better contrast & more pleasing colors (how a lens can effect the colors is beyond me, but that's how it looks to me).

the Canon 50 1.4 looks like a good lens too, but I've read that the particular USM motor used in it is ancient & prone to breaking down.   The 1.2L has the full time manual adjust high end USM motor, but because it's such a heavy lens focuses slightly slower than the 1.4.  The sigma also seems to have more vignetting & chromatic aberration compared to the L from the reviews I have read.

[charlesa]

50 L ... and it always turns into a pissing contest it seems!

[J.R.]

the Canon 50 1.4 looks like a good lens too, but I've read that the particular USM motor used in it is ancient & prone to breaking down.   The 1.2L has the full time manual adjust high end USM motor, but because it's such a heavy lens focuses slightly slower than the 1.4.  The sigma also seems to have more vignetting & chromatic aberration compared to the L from the reviews I have read.

I broadly agree with the post but there are fact which are quoted wrong and need correction. The 1.4 also has full time manual focus and the reason why the 1.2L focuses slowly is because it is focuses by moving the lens elements in the front unlike the lens design for other USM lenses - not because it is heavy.

[skitron]

50 L ... and it always turns into a pissing contest it seems!

You can basically get both the Sigma 35 plus the 50 1.4 lens of your choice for the price of the 50L.

And given the technical warts of the 50L that come with the good, I guess a lot of opinions end up getting expressed?

[EvilTed]

I had both a 50 F/1.8 and a 50 F/1.2L - prefer the Sigma 35 to both of them easily

ET